Psychology of the Gender-Equitable Environment: Research of Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to perform a comparative analysis of the level characteristics of the subjective perception of the egalitarian psychological well-being of participants in the educational process in mono- and heterogender educational space. The study used qualitative and quantitative methods to measure the level of psychological safety and psychological protection of participants in the educational process. The study relied on a questionnaire that was adapted to identify three indicators: “integrated indicator of the attitude to the educational environment”, “significant characteristics of the educational environment and the index of satisfaction with it”, “index of psychological security of the educational environment”. A pilot project that was developed on the basis of the Research Centre for Gender Education and Development of Pupils and Students of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine determined the educational vectors for building the psychology of an egalitarian safe, educational environment. The analysis found significant differences in the value of the coefficient of psychological well-being of participants in the educational process in all three models of organization of educational space. The masculine model revealed statistically significant signs of subjective psychological distress in cadets compared to the other two models. The satisfaction of parents and teachers with the level of psychological security in a gender-homogeneous educational environment is quite high. The model which reflects the feminine principle of forming study groups is subjectively perceived by students as psychologically safe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".